who you trust.

 A good question was asked about Ufologists not revealing the names of witnesses/percipients and claiming that it is for confidentiality reasons and that the person does not want to be named. It's something a lot of fakers use when asked about sources: "He's a high level police officer and other cops saw the same thing....trust me."

No. exploiting an incident for personal gain such as  a book or even TV deals and the only source for "the major case" is the Ufologist. No. Same applies in many other fields but with Ufology its a common way to add fake accounts as 'evidence' for UFOs.

Easiest way to back up that there is a real witness is to have a statement given to a notary of some kind.  What I have done in the past is show signatures or letters to people visiting who have not got the slightest interest in what I do regarding weird stuff. I'll either have them sign a note stating "I have seen the letter in question and signature and it is genuine."  Others get to see a letter from Lord (Brinsley) Clancarty or former Air Vice Marshal Sir Victor Goddard, etc., and they stare blankly -they mean absolutely nothing to them. But they have seen the letters, etc.

Although I might show a person a witness statement with signature there is never an address shown and good luck find the witness!

But for me I keep records private and there are documents now 40+ years old that have not been shown to anyone and the main reason is that the persons involved are either dead or no longer wanted any contact with Ufology so I cannot get permission to publish details as I made a promise of privacy.

What is the evidence? Is the witness/percipient(s) trustworthy? Those are my main questions when dealing with a report made to me.  Sadly, we know for a fact that Ufologists have used the confidentiality game to fake reports to hoax other Ufologists -not just the UK but in the USA, Spain, etc- which makes anything coming from specific sources suspect.

In the end, probably, it comes down to who you trust.